Abstract
Purpose. Utility values obtained with the standard gamble (SG) method using the probability equivalence approach (PE) have a reported bias due to the "certainty effect." This effect causes individuals to overvalue a positive outcome when it occurs under certainty. Researchers in the decision sciences have proposed an alternative, "lottery equivalence” (LE) approach, using paired gambles, to eliminate this bias. The major objective of the current study was to investigate the certainty effect in health status utility measures and to test our hypothesis that the certainty effect would act in a reverse direction for negatively valued outcomes.
Methods. Fifty-four subjects completed the study by assessing preferences for three health states by rating scale and then by SG using PE as well as LE approaches with assessment lotteries of 0.5 and 0.75.
Results. The results from 41 useable responses point towards possible existence of the certainty effect in health in the hypothesized direction: utility values obtained with the PE were significantly lower than with the LEs. There was no significant difference between the LE values indicating elimination of the bias.
Conclusions. The results have important implications since the SG using PE is thought be the "gold standard” in health status utility measurements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
G. W. Torrance. J. Chron. Dis. 40(6):593–600 (1987).
G. W. Torrance. J. Health Econ. 5:1–30 (1986).
J. von Neumann and O. Morgernstern. Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd edition, Princeton University Press, New York. 1947.
P. H. Farquhar. Mgmt. Sci. 30(11):1283–1300 (Nov. 1984).
M. R. McCord and R. deNeufville. Mgmt. Sci. 32(1):56–60 (Jan. 1986).
M. Allais. In M. Allais, and O. Hagen, (eds.). Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Holland, 1979, pp. 437–482.
J. C. Hershey, H. C. Kunreuther, and P. J. H. Schoemaker. Mgmt. Sci. 28(8):936–954 (Aug. 1982).
R. T. Clemen. In Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. PWS-Kent, Boston, 1991.
M. R. McCord and R. deNeufville. J. Large Scale Sys. 6:91–103 (1984).
G. W. Torrance. Socioeconomic Planning Science. 10:129–136 (1976).
M. F. Drummond, G. L. Stoddart, and G. W. Torrance. In Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford, 1992, pp. 112–148.
D. L. Sackett and G. W. Torrance. J. Chron. Dis. 31:697–704 (1978).
T. R. Bowe. Medical Decision Making. 15(3):283–285 (Jul–Sep 1995).
W. Furlong, D. Feeny, G. W. Torrance, R. Barr, and J. Horsman. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. working Paper Series. Ontario, Canada: Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1990, Paper#90-9.
L. C. G. Verhoef, A. F. J. DeHaan, and W. A. J. Van Daal. Medical Decision Making. 14:194–200, 1994.
Z. A. Hakim. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1995.
R. E. Kirk. Experimental Design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. Brooks/Cole, California, 1982.
D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. Econometrica. 47:263–291 (1979).
G. Loomes and R. Sugden. Economics Journal. 92:805 (1982).
G. Loomes and R. Sugden. J. Econ. Theory. 41:270 (1987).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Law, A.V., Pathak, D.S. & McCord, M.R. Health Status Utility Assessment by Standard Gamble: A Comparison of the Probability Equivalence and the Lottery Equivalence Approaches. Pharm Res 15, 105–109 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011913123135
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011913123135